The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1887-01-20

n1ted States in the caso 80 M u she !
' as aa oneaa' Thus both of these RENE.
3 adopted for the enforcement Of 4hs
oa; statement of the debt nasj
o &c; Inc approval of the high. N t
,'ai tribunal of The Natbap iu- /
! ' I'm they weEe. ia 5as~ During ]
easprv soaf'sSs Wsr' e only about
atl,;os ~ WV !" received into the
70 Sse' lore they were .,s enas yss 4
- lore of coupons every yef4f I
& in payment of taxes, thus oil
mo the school fund. impoverishing the
Treasury. and threatening the very exis
tence of the State government Ana IL
the changes and amendments OF 'hese
acts made by the Democratic Legislature
Of 1ss3-S4 constituted the basis OF the de-
cision of the Supreme Court, by which 1t
was declared that the coupons must be
received for all taxes when rendered, then
the responsibility for the disturbance, II
not destruction of the Riddleberger set
Element. must fall upon the Democratic
party.
A brief reference to the acts OF the
Legislature of 1sS3-S4, and their nature,
relating to the debt question, will amply
demonstrate that this location of respon-
sibility is proper, and that the Democrat
ic party is amer able to the charge OF
having brought about the present deplor-
able condition of the State finances
The uas of coupons in payment OF any
tax, was absolutely forbidden and all acts lls
consistent with this prov sion were repealed
by act passed March is, 1884, This act
absolutely denied the tax paying power
of the coupon, and thus detied the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court OF the State
and the United States.
The use of coupons in payment of spe-
cial licenses. or Of the capitation tax or Of
one-ft urth of each tax bill called the school
tax, was absolutely forbidden, and all acts
inconsistent Herewith repealed, by acts
passed Feb. 7, 1884, Feb. rs, and March
%, 1854.
Corporations, foreign and domestic, weIs
forbidden to use coupons at all in payment
of their taxes, under penalty of forfeiture
of their charters. and this proposition
was sought to be made effective by gen.
eral law, approved Feb. rs, 1884, which
provides that thereafter no company shall
be chartered or have an amendment re-
newal of extension granted, except on
condition that it shall ''pay its taxes in
money. and not in coupons and also by
inserting this provision in nearly al. the
new charters granted.
And thus as to every class of debt due
to or demand upon the State, an act was
passed prohibiting absolutely the use OF
aouppns ip payment thereof, thus running
directly counter to the decisions of the So
preme Court of the State and the Unitei
States. In this condition of the Legislation
| of the Democratic party in 1683-S4, The
counsel for the bondholders forced theil
J claim, Suits were instituted to test tht
constitntionalitg Of this legislation and il
: came before the Supreme Court In thu
case of Thomas Poindexter against Sam
|, G., ~Greenhow w. L. White against tn!
came gamnel G, Garter against the same
8. Brown Allen, auditor. &C., against TIL
B. & o. R. R. Co.; r. B. Chafin agains
| w. TayIor-the first taken up from thu
Hastings Court of the City of Richmond
} several from the Circuit Court of tn
United States for the Eastern District Of
, Virginia, and one from the Supreme Cour
OF Virgins. The cases were grouped AM
] decided against the State, pronouneinl
| the legislation of 1888 81, above referred
to, unconstitutional. and compelling tn
receipt of coupons for all taxes, debts
{ dyes and demands upon the State. l
held that the tender pf the coupons j
!, payment of tax is a legal tepier an!
E that it is the same in effect as the tende
! of coin It extinguished the States clajp
for the tax, save and except, probably. be
f right to demand the coupons. This
questioned, however, and will have to b
, submitted TO 2 fnai ruling. It holes tina
, it was a trespass for The officer to levy t
compel the payment of the taxes in an
J other medium after the tender of The cou
| pons, and he must be enjQiped from levy
ing after such tender that all the law
) of the State of Virginia which forbid tn
f officer to receive coupons In payment O
? taxes were unconstitutional and void, an,
: all the laws that command him to levy afte
| The tender of eonpnns were unconstitu
, tional and void. and that the State law
e which forbid the tax payer to sue the of
/ ficer for his trespass in the State court
| nd
: the taxpayers right to sue for tresspas
or for an injunction, at his pleasure, eithe
y in the State Court or in the Unite
j States Court. 1t declared that all Of th
: acts which the Democratic Legislature
of 1es3-S4 passed must be taken ant
considered together, and that when thu
, considered they disclose purpose on tn
part of the State to destroy the coupons
and that it is not within her power t
destroy them, and therefore all of then
must fall together, Specifically it decides
: the right of the taxpayer to sue the Office
: in detinue who may seize his property afte
e tender of coupons and to force him Il
: surrender his property. 1t declared i
f was his right to sue the officer for dam
t ages for trespass in seizlng the rropert,
. and to have an Injunction to prevent hin
: FROM seiging and selling the property.
} It will be seen from this historical re
view of the debt legislation and litigation
that the Republicans enacted laws, which
: received the sanction of the highest court
in the land. protecting the State Treas
, ury against coupons, yet not denying the
rights of the coupon holder. and that TIT
Democrats SO disturbed and impaired this
!, legislation as to destroy it and thus in.
vited the Federal Courts to interfere tx
protect the rights of the creditors which
were denied, and maintain the sanctity of
a contract, which had been violated. That
, the whole legislation of the Republicans
: was within the purview of the Constitution
and therefore valid, and that the whole leg.
islation of the DEMOCRATS was in violation
of demonstration and therefore null and
void. And it further demonstrates the
fact that the Democratic party, and the
Democratic party alone, is responsible for
the present deplorable condition of the
State, which jeopardizes the public
schools, the charitable institutions and
| of